PC/WI: Sassanid Ethiopia

So during the perpetual pissing contest between the Persians and the Romans, during the reigns of Khosrau and Justinian, Yemen, which was allied to Persia, was invaded by Axum, who were allied to Rome. The Axumites, in coordination with Rome, cut the Persians off from their ports and African trade routes. In response the Persians launched an expedition to expel the Axumites and restore their deposed ally to the throne.

What if the Persians decided to eliminate the possibility of this happening again, as well as removing a potential Roman ally in the region, and launched an invasion of Axum? Would they be able to pull it off and if so how long could they maintain their influence there?
 
So during the perpetual pissing contest between the Persians and the Romans, during the reigns of Khosrau and Justinian, Yemen, which was allied to Persia, was invaded by Axum, who were allied to Rome. The Axumites, in coordination with Rome, cut the Persians off from their ports and African trade routes. In response the Persians launched an expedition to expel the Axumites and restore their deposed ally to the throne.

What if the Persians decided to eliminate the possibility of this happening again, as well as removing a potential Roman ally in the region, and launched an invasion of Axum? Would they be able to pull it off and if so how long could they maintain their influence there?

The Sassanids occupied Yemen for a brief period. I think they would need to fully incorporate the area into their empire before setting their site on Ethiopia. Would be interesting to see a Zoroastrian east Africa.
 
The sassanids could never maintain any sort of grip over ethiopia. It's like italy owning china. The overextension would be insane, any rebellion would take so long to put down, unless they maintained an expensive standing army in the area.
 
The sassanids could never maintain any sort of grip over ethiopia. It's like italy owning china. The overextension would be insane, any rebellion would take so long to put down, unless they maintained an expensive standing army in the area.
Wouldn't they have a fairly overseas supply chain? Assuming they are able to maintain a presence in southern Arabia they should be able to supply their forces by sea easily enough.
 
What if the Persians decided to eliminate the possibility of this happening again, as well as removing a potential Roman ally in the region, and launched an invasion of Axum?

So, why exactly are the Romans allowing this to go unresponded to? If Persia tries to take Ethiopia, they aren't fighting just the Axumites. Axum is within Constantinople's sphere of influence, and there's no way the Romans are going to allow their greatest enemy to have a foothold with nothing but a handful of Nubian kingdoms standing between Persia and the Egyptian breadbasket. And why are the Persians so obsessed with taking Ethiopia? If they have the manpower to strike this kind of blow against Rome it's far more likely that they would go after the rest of Mesopotamia, Syria or the Caucasuses then Ethiopia.

Wouldn't they have a fairly overseas supply chain? Assuming they are able to maintain a presence in southern Arabia they should be able to supply their forces by sea easily enough.

The Sassanids never really had much of a naval tradition as far as I know. While they could project power into Southern Arabia there's a difference between making a short hop across the Hormuz and taking your army from Persia to Ethiopia, and even Southern Arabia there were constant proxy conflicts between Roman and Persian backed kingdoms. Any supplies are going to have to go through Southern Arabia, and a lot of it is going to have to stay in Southern Arabia so that the Byzantines don't just get another Arab kingdom to counter invade Himyar.

The sassanids could never maintain any sort of grip over ethiopia. It's like italy owning china. The overextension would be insane, any rebellion would take so long to put down, unless they maintained an expensive standing army in the area.

I disagree with this part however. Persia did historically have a lot of Southern Arabian client states, so it's not an impossibility for a Persian empire to at some point control parts of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa as puppets if nothing else. However the late Sassanids were not that hypothetical empire. They might be able to pull it off if there's a much earlier PoD, but it would require at least a generation or two of Shahs looking to the sea for their expansion.

Would they be able to pull it off

Very unlikely, even discounting the Romans. Axum was no pushover in the sixth century, and that was their offensive capabilities. With their homeland's easily defended highlands the Persians will be facing an uphill battle from the start.

how long could they maintain their influence there?

The Sassanids would not be likely to be able to annex Ethiopia even if they won decisively. The terrain is too good for guerilla attacks and the populace is heavily Christian and willing to fight to the death against the Zoroastrian invaders. A Sassanid backed Christian claimant, particularly one that has their own followers and army, might be doable though. The Sassanid influence would last about exactly as long as they are able to maintain complete control over Southern Arabia- which probably gives us an end date no later than the seventh century unless the Arab population explosion is butterflied somehow. Even if it is the minute the Sassanids start to face a decline, even a small one, the Ethiopians will go their own separate way.
 
Top